The Degradation of Fitness Science: One Example

Written by Brian D. Johnston

In an article by a well known "functional/core exercise" proponent, there is an attempt to affiliaterepparttar concepts of microscopic life ofrepparttar 137418 amoeba with human cellular processes, and "functional training" whenrepparttar 137419 author claims: "Movement, survival andrepparttar 137420 optimal functioning ofrepparttar 137421 organism all go hand in hand." This statement opens a door forrepparttar 137422 author as he links "movement" with "function," together withrepparttar 137423 concept of "optimal." He then claims that there is a link between functional exercise and survival, as confirmed historically byrepparttar 137424 "fact" that when exercise needs are not met (too much, too little, an absence orrepparttar 137425 wrong kind), then "disease lurks!” Certainly lack of activity or too much activity (excess strain) can pose negative results, but here he links "the wrong kind" of exercise to that of disease or ill health.

After addressing how natives achieved functional fitness through hunting practices,repparttar 137426 author then discussed ancient methods of yoga, Tai-Chi, and then martial arts, connectingrepparttar 137427 concept of "functional exercise" with improving health and vitality ofrepparttar 137428 mind and body, to improve "man’s relationship with both external and internal nature." This concept has now opened a second door forrepparttar 137429 author’s "brand" of functional training and to denounce methods that are different.

Apparently, according torepparttar 137430 author, today’s concept of exercise (particularly bodybuilding) is wrong, since many methods confirm to Newtonian thinking to produce an "isolationists’/reductionists’ point of view," in that we think of only single muscles and notrepparttar 137431 body as a whole. Rather, what we need is "system integration." This would mean whole-body movement/participation of some kind. However, bodybuilders do considerrepparttar 137432 look ofrepparttar 137433 body as a whole, and many exercises performed take into account body coordination (or, at least,repparttar 137434 coordination of several muscles).

Evenrepparttar 137435 use of a single-joint exercise machine causes its user to contract many muscles in an attempt to bracerepparttar 137436 body and to generate greater body coordination as muscular fatigue is reached. Further ignored isrepparttar 137437 fact that it may be necessary to focus one’s attention on a single muscle (for reasons of balancing development or function). And, by doing so, this improvesrepparttar 137438 system as a whole as muscles are able to work and integrate better in more dynamic activities, i.e., by strengtheningrepparttar 137439 weakest link.

The author claims thatrepparttar 137440 exercise machine industry also is at fault, as it breaksrepparttar 137441 body into separate parts or muscle groups to be worked in isolation, "building on people’s aesthetic desires rather than functional needs." It is well known that no muscle can work in complete isolation, as stated inrepparttar 137442 paragraph above. Nonetheless, exaggeration is obvious in that many machines do train multiple muscles, such as pulldowns, machine deadlifts and squats, leg presses, chest presses, and shoulder presses, or that a person can train for aesthetics as well as function. If a person’s biceps can produce 50% more force as a result of machine or dumbbell biceps curls that served to increase both mass and strength, certainly that person’s biceps’ function has improved, and this has an influence on full body functional ability.

The author then claims that those who succumb to modern isolationist exercise methods and influence suffer higher incidence of injury. What proof does he offer? None. Conversely,repparttar 137443 author does not reference activities that producerepparttar 137444 highest forces (and greatest potential for injury), such as explosive lifting, Olympic lifts, and plyometrics. In fact, he does endorse Olympic lifting and plyometrics (within reason) since they apparently mimic "natural" movement better. He also recommendsrepparttar 137445 higher risk of Swiss ball exercises, with an attempt to balance and control weights in an unstable environment. I do not recallrepparttar 137446 last time a person needed to clean and jerk an object, jump multiple times off boxes (sometimes with loads onrepparttar 137447 shoulders), or to balance one’s self on a ball in activities of daily living. Consequently, how do those activities mimicrepparttar 137448 "natural" movements of walking, lifting items offrepparttar 137449 ground (carefully), climbing stairs, orrepparttar 137450 unique and specific mechanics of various sporting activities (outside Olympic lifting)?

The author continues by stating that there is limited value in isolationist exercise approaches, which is why there is such a divergence toward Tai-Chi and other "integrated" systems. It should be obvious that any approach is limited in value (since everything inrepparttar 137451 Universe is finite), and that includes Tai-Chi, which does a poor job of optimizing muscular strength and muscle development, two key aspects that support "function" as we age. From my perspective, people tend to diverge toward Tai-Chi because it is an easy means of activity, and is more of a means of meditation and relaxation than exercise. In any event, it has been established that greater muscular loading and functional improvement can be had with stable exercises as opposed to unstable Swiss ball exercises. This only makes sense since so much more effort is directed toward balance (and paranoia of falling) during unstable exercises, together with less weight and effort onrepparttar 137452 target muscles. However, those aspects are ignored byrepparttar 137453 author.

Now, for an exercise system to be "functional," it should meetrepparttar 137454 author’s criteria:

1. It must support and improve life. Chronic (regular?) exposure to "training to failure" is not a good thing inrepparttar 137455 author’s eyes and serves only to "extinguish vitality." It is ironic that many individuals (including yours truly) has trained in this manner for many years, are strong, physically developed and feel a great deal of vitality. It is not training to muscular fatigue that isrepparttar 137456 problem, butrepparttar 137457 overall demands that one is exposed to, including too much volume and frequency. Nonetheless, training to failure and believing in "no pain, no gain," according torepparttar 137458 author, "results in dysfunctional exercise and less functional people." The idea of "no pain, no gain" is exaggerated, although well meaning at one point inrepparttar 137459 history of exercise (to get people to exercise harder). However, if a person can increase strength and muscle to a greater degree (or even torepparttar 137460 same degree) by training to failure (without abusing exercise in general), how would that result in less functional people? How does greater/improved function = less function?

The author concludes by stating: "the by-product of modern bodybuilding and these types of training mottos is a new culture of fitness without health." Suffice it to say that a person can be healthy without partaking in a regular fitness program. "Healthy" generally means free from disease. And needless to say that an intense exercise program that improves blood cholesterol, blood pressure, resting heart rate, cardiovascular endurance, heart resilience, strength, muscle, and ADL function certainly is "fitness with health." Moreover,repparttar 137461 term "fitness" means "the quality or state of being fit," and "fit" means "to be well adapted or suitable for" (Oxford’s English Dictionary). Partaking in a fitness program, to become "fit" (although some are better than others) will result in positive health changes, even if a method happens to be one of aesthetics primarily, i.e., bodybuilding.

5 Questions You Need To Answer Before Purchasing a Treadmill

Written by Aaron Co

Withrepparttar advancement inrepparttar 137375 treadmill industry, quality machines could now cost you up to $5,000. So purchasingrepparttar 137376 wrong equipment could prove costly. And withrepparttar 137377 huge variety of treadmills inrepparttar 137378 market today, finding one that suits you best has become even more confusing.

This isrepparttar 137379 reason why I created these guide questions. It aims to educate people on how to purchaserepparttar 137380 best treadmill for their needs and avoid some costly mistakes.

So before you start shopping for your new treadmill, answer firstrepparttar 137381 following guide questions below. They will guide you into makingrepparttar 137382 right purchase.

1) Who would userepparttar 137383 treadmill?

The treadmill you would be buying would depend on how much you weigh, how tall you are, and how many people would use it.

Most treadmills have a maximum user weight limit, so be sure that your treadmill will be able to support your body weight. For tall people, I suggest you choose machines with lengthy decks, since your strides will be longer than normal.

Ifrepparttar 137384 whole family would be using it, it would be better to buy higher quality treadmills (those above $2,000) to make sure that it can handlerepparttar 137385 workouts of everyone inrepparttar 137386 family.

2) How often wouldrepparttar 137387 treadmill be used?

The quality (and price) ofrepparttar 137388 machine you will be buying would also depend onrepparttar 137389 number of timesrepparttar 137390 treadmill will be used in a week and for how long. As a guide, a person who weighs less than 200 lbs. and plans to run on it for 30 minutes a day, 7 times a week should get a treadmill inrepparttar 137391 $1,500 - $2,000 range.

Cont'd on page 2 ==> © 2005
Terms of Use